Trump Reaches Deal to Keep Carrier Factory, Jobs in Indiana: Report

Yeah, another skewed CNN statistic. They decided not to include the worst year of his presidency. His first year. If you include that you take away a
third of what he 'created'.

So what happens when you start the clock on Obama's first day of office? If you do that, Obama can only take credit for 10.8 million new jobs. He also
looks a bit worse compared to Reagan and Clinton. Some make the case that the Obama jobs clock should start in February 2009 since the president only
takes office on January 20 and that was a terrible month for job losses. Starting in February yields 11.5 million new jobs created under Obama. "It's
obviously a political question, because it's a judgment about whether he was responsible for any or all of those 4.3 million jobs lost during his
first 13 months in office, or just for the 15 million jobs added thereafter," says Lakshman Achuthan, co-founder of the Economic Cycle Research
Institute. Achuthan doesn't take a stance on which method is better. The Obama administration says the job gains clock shouldn't start until 2010
because it took time for the president's policies to take effect to get the country out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Let's do some basic math here. Quoting an earlier figure of ~2000 jobs that were going to Mexico, that alone would have been a loss of income tax
revenue by the state of ~$3,335,112 based on the median income in Indiana from 2015 of $50,532 and an income tax rate of 3.3%. By cutting that loss to
1000, the loss of income revenue by the state is reduced to $1,667,556. With the previously stated tax incentive of $700,000/yr., that loss is
increased to $2,367,556. Therefore, the state has maintained ~$967,556 in revenue that was previously guaranteed lost. Whether that $967,556 covers
the welfare costs of the 1000 displaced workers, I do not know. Point being, the losses were mitigated. That's not to say they were negated, but it's
a step in the right direction. Is there someone here smarter than me who can explain why it would have been better to say goodbye to all of the jobs?

It is 700k per year for 10 years...
You are assuming all of those 1000 employees would never work again or find work in 10 years? You are doing tax revenue math assuming those laid off
workers will never work again...and assuming those workers are paying the full State tax rate.

But more concerning is the idea of blackmail...A US company just threatened to move jobs to Mexico and got a 7M dollar payout in taxpayer funds to not
do so.

It's not like Indiana is paying Carrier $7,000,000. They're foregoing $7,000,000 in revenue that would have come from Carrier. Will there still be
revenue coming into the state from the Carrier facility? Even if the $700,000/yr is what Carrier was paying, there's still fees collected by the state
from the trucking companies moving goods to/from the facility, the taxes on the employees and very likely several vendors that supply the facility.
None of that is figured into the most basic calculations I presented. If the plant was closed entirely, there was almost certainly more losses than
just the taxes paid by the employees and Carrier.

Mr. Trump, while offering a carrot through the state incentives, also held an implicit stick: the threat of pulling $5 billion to $6 billion in
federal contracts from Carrier’s parent, United Technologies. Mr. Trump and his team were well aware that the amount United Technologies stood to
lose in those contracts dwarfed the estimated $65 million Carrier sought to save by moving to Monterrey from Indiana.

ETA: Notice that the same vertical scale is used for two different types of measurement. This is a classic way to
lie with statistics. Because the other groups had smaller shares of the job market,
their gains would look much smaller if graphed correctly. A 10% increase over 10% is only 1% of the total job market!

I doubt he is bothered by the mathematically impossible graph he posted when he borrowed the graphic from an article authored by "Tyler Durden" with
Brad Pitts face as an icon that was posted on site that is widely panned as sharing Russian Propaganda and Fake News..

Oh no doubt...he promised Carrier's parent who is a military contractor some cushy contracts in addition to the 7M payout. Of course that would be
illegal as it hurts competitive bidders and taxpayers and the GSA would get sued by other military contractors along with Trump once he takes office
and FOIA requests are filed forcing the new Admin to disclose the full details of the pay-off he gave them. Expect this Carrier deal to be an emerging
issue year one.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.